TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case are that; 2.1 the assessee company is engaged in the trading business of Two-wheelers which filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 declaring total income of R Rs. 3,54,860/-. The case of the assessee was subject to scrutiny wherein the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by making three bullet additions owning various disallowances viz; (1) disallowance of Rs. 1,40,291/- being 25% of incentives paid to sales staff where related vouchers lacked key details of incentives paid (2) disallowance owning to delayed remittance of ESIC contribution Rs. 24,118/- made on the basis of Tax Audit Report ['TAR' hereinafter] and (3) disallowance of interest on delayed payment of TDS etc. 2.2 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e course of virtual hearing, the Ld. AR at the outset sought our attention to ground related to disallowance of ESIC and submitted candidly that, in view of the settled position of law laid in 'Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT' reported in 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) the issue of disallowance is no-more res-integra, hence prayed to be decided accordingly. Insofar as the ad-hoc disallowance of sales incentive is concerned, it is averred that, the assessee maintained all requisite vouchers, books & other supporting details in terms of section 44AA of the Act and are certified by the auditor under Companies Act, 1956 as well u/s 44AB of the Act, that these expenditures are incurred wholly and exclusively for achieving sales target and are paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stands meritless, hence dismissed. 6. Now we shall deal with ground number 1 relating to ad-hoc disallowances; 6.1 On careful consideration of records it transpired that, neither of the lower tax authorities had pin-pointed any voucher where genuineness of sale incentive/expenditure claimed to have been incurred by the assessee wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business did not inspire any confidence, nor it was the case of the revenue that any part of the expenditure in question was either found bogus or fictitious, nor was found to have not been incurred by the appellant wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. Indeed, it showcased an exercise of running around the circle. Further we neither could come across ....